Arizona Senate Passes Bill Allowing Business Owners To Refuse Service To Gays

[Iceweasel]

Good, you know a couple of things, so answer the question: what do US Laws, OT laws, and NT laws all say about Murder?

Explain the relevence. Laws aren't theology.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Seriously, if you don't recognize what Democrats do to Clarance Thomas, Condie Rice, Colin Powell, Herman Cain, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Michelle Backman, Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingram... Then you're just a fool who isn't worth wasting time on.

What have they done to those people? They've all been quite successful. Are any of them in prison? Did any of them commit suicide? They all Public Figures, which means people can say just about anything they like about them, but those people know that. Those people have been "destroyed"? How so??

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Good, you know a couple of things, so answer the question: what do US Laws, OT laws, and NT laws all say about Murder?

Explain the relevence. Laws aren't theology.

No, they're Moral. The laws against murder are Moral laws. We, society, proscribes morality, for people of all faiths in this case.

 

[kaz]

Seriously, if you don't recognize what Democrats do to Clarance Thomas, Condie Rice, Colin Powell, Herman Cain, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Michelle Backman, Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingram... Then you're just a fool who isn't worth wasting time on.

What have they done to those people? They've all been quite successful. Are any of them in prison? Did any of them commit suicide? They all Public Figures, which means people can say just about anything they like about them, but those people know that. Those people have been "destroyed"? How so??

You're a hoot. You're a blind partisan hack. You can't see because you don't want to.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Seriously, if you don't recognize what Democrats do to Clarance Thomas, Condie Rice, Colin Powell, Herman Cain, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Michelle Backman, Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingram... Then you're just a fool who isn't worth wasting time on.

What have they done to those people? They've all been quite successful. Are any of them in prison? Did any of them commit suicide? They all Public Figures, which means people can say just about anything they like about them, but those people know that. Those people have been "destroyed"? How so??

You're a hoot. You're a blind partisan hack. You can't see because you don't want to.

You say you're an honest person? Answer the questions? What bad things have happened to these people? Many of them are on TV. One on the Supreme Court. One runs Stanford. One is retired. Several are successful authors? What terrible things were done to them? Be honest now, that's who you are right?

 

[Silhouette]

Spamming the pages to bury the meat of the topic...hmmm...

 

[bodecea]

Seriously, if you don't recognize what Democrats do to Clarance Thomas, Condie Rice, Colin Powell, Herman Cain, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Michelle Backman, Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingram... Then you're just a fool who isn't worth wasting time on.

What have they done to those people? They've all been quite successful. Are any of them in prison? Did any of them commit suicide? They all Public Figures, which means people can say just about anything they like about them, but those people know that. Those people have been "destroyed"? How so??

You're a hoot. You're a blind partisan hack. You can't see because you don't want to.

His question is totally valid. How have those people you listed been destroyed?

 

[Silhouette]

Honestly, that's all just reactionary dogma. Destroy women, blacks, and gays, who the Democratic party is made up of?

And Liberals are Classic Liberals, only they live two hundred years later, so times have change things a bt. Show us, just for fun, some examples of this "destruction"?

No, it's not as simple as all that. "women and blacks" are states of being since birth. "gays" are part of a behavioral group, a cult movement of some, but not all, deviant sexual behaviors.

You guys are still caught up in comparing "sin for sin" eh?

Its a mortal sin for an individual to murder, etc. It's a sin of an entire society to facilitate the usurping of God's matrix of male-female sexuality and it's being the backbone wherein a non gender-blended interaction can serve to test the individuals.

The church of LGBT has been quite open about their bid to dissolve God's matrix, to blend everything together. That is the sin. And it cannot be allowed for reasons quite possibly, and naturally so, out of the reach of the grasp or understanding of most people reading this.

So naturally the mistake or the purposeful misrepresentation of anyone rebutting this post from the new church of LGBT would be to say, "So if most people don't get it, then it doesn't have merit and christians should just drop it!"

And the answer to that is, NO. For there wouldn't be any religion if people understood the reasons behind everything. But we don't. And if you accept that there is a higher being, a greater intelligence behind this big Plan we are all in, then you will have to accept that there will be concepts and warnings from this higher being that will defy the masses' natural inclinations to the endless indulgences and temptations of the flesh that are far, far wiser than we mere humans will ever understand.

Suffice to say that in Jude 1 and Romans 1, even if we do not understand the why of homosexual cultural promotion being one of the gravest mortal sins around, we surely will get the "here's what will happen if you don't abide" angle.

That is spelled out quite clearly for all to "get"...

JUDE 1

3. Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

4. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

5. I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not...

..7. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire...

...14. And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

15. To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

16. These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.

17. But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

18. How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

19. These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.

20. But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

21. Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

22. And of some have compassion, making a difference:

23. And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

24. Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy..

ROMANS 1

22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25. Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29. Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30. Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31. Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32. Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

That isn't an ambigious gray area there folks. That's a direct statement on promotion of or participation in a homosexual lifestyle.

Homosexuals do now and will always exist. But in Jude 1 it tells the faithful to extend compassion to them even as they unwaveringly resist their smooth speech to allow their behaviors any badge of normalcy. People of many mental imbalances must always deserve our compassion but never a promotion of their flawed behaviors as "normal". That is the sin of tampering with the matrix.

 

[dblack]

Because we, society, disapproved so we made another law that goes against the First Amendment.

This highlights exactly where you're so off-base. The entire point of Constitutional protections are to prevent society from bullying minorities simply because they 'disapprove'.

I'm only off-base if I agree, what if I don't?

Then it raises the possibility I've misinterpreted your position. Or you're simply inconsistent. It's hard to say because your posts tend to be quips rather than arguments. Care to clarify?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No, it's not as simple as all that. "women and blacks" are states of being since birth. "gays" are part of a behavioral group, a cult movement of some, but not all, deviant sexual behaviors.

Tell me, how could I check to see whether someone was actually a "woman"? Genetics maybe? Is XX female, and XY male? What if I had on my hands a male but they looked like a woman? What are they really, male or female?

 

[kaz]

What have they done to those people? They've all been quite successful. Are any of them in prison? Did any of them commit suicide? They all Public Figures, which means people can say just about anything they like about them, but those people know that. Those people have been "destroyed"? How so??

You're a hoot. You're a blind partisan hack. You can't see because you don't want to.

You say you're an honest person? Answer the questions? What bad things have happened to these people? Many of them are on TV. One on the Supreme Court. One runs Stanford. One is retired. Several are successful authors? What terrible things were done to them? Be honest now, that's who you are right?

That they are famous and haven't committed suicide doesn't contradict my point that liberals are close minded and rigidly intolerant. So I don't see the point of your "questions." I also challenged you to what would be an easy task if you weren't wrong, to give examples of things that liberals are open to views about and disagree on, you can't.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

This highlights exactly where you're so off-base. The entire point of Constitutional protections are to prevent society from bullying minorities simply because they 'disapprove'.

I'm only off-base if I agree, what if I don't?

Then it raises the possibility I've misinterpreted your position. Or you're simply inconsistent. It's hard to say because your posts tend to be quips rather than arguments. Care to clarify?

Well, let's see what we have here. We have an Amendment to a Constitution that says Congress shall make no law, and yet they do. We also have the issue that even if Congress hadn't, the States were allowed to, until that is the Supreme Court said that same Constitutional protection applied to the States as well, only they also have laws that limit Free Speech, and the Supreme Court has upheld limitations from both of them. So the Constitution says one thing but in reality that's not the Law of the Land.

We good so far?

 

[kaz]

What have they done to those people? They've all been quite successful. Are any of them in prison? Did any of them commit suicide? They all Public Figures, which means people can say just about anything they like about them, but those people know that. Those people have been "destroyed"? How so??

You're a hoot. You're a blind partisan hack. You can't see because you don't want to.

His question is totally valid. How have those people you listed been destroyed?

What has been done to them is clear, I'm not interested in a debate with two closed minds any more than one.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You're a hoot. You're a blind partisan hack. You can't see because you don't want to.

You say you're an honest person? Answer the questions? What bad things have happened to these people? Many of them are on TV. One on the Supreme Court. One runs Stanford. One is retired. Several are successful authors? What terrible things were done to them? Be honest now, that's who you are right?

That they are famous and haven't committed suicide doesn't contradict my point that liberals are close minded and rigidly intolerant. So I don't see the point of your "questions." I also challenged you to what would be an easy task if you weren't wrong, to give examples of things that liberals are open to views about and disagree on, you can't.

The examples you gave me are people who has supposedly been hurt bu the vicious Liberals, and yet they all seem to be perfectly fine? If they've been hurt why can't you show that to us? What bad things were done to them?

And what do Liberals not agree on? War, abortion, debt, religion, foreign policy, global warming, politics, art, science, spanking children, prostitution, drugs, education, and bad TV. Pick a couple and we'll play with them.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You're a hoot. You're a blind partisan hack. You can't see because you don't want to.

His question is totally valid. How have those people you listed been destroyed?

What has been done to them is clear, I'm not interested in a debate with two closed minds any more than one.

She's stuck, because it's dogma and untrue. We're closed-minded because we are asking her to prove what she believes but can't. Interesting.

 

[dblack]

I'm only off-base if I agree, what if I don't?

Then it raises the possibility I've misinterpreted your position. Or you're simply inconsistent. It's hard to say because your posts tend to be quips rather than arguments. Care to clarify?

Well, let's see what we have here. We have an Amendment to a Constitution that says Congress shall make no law, and yet they do. We also have the issue that even if Congress hadn't, the States were allowed to, until that is the Supreme Court said that same Constitutional protection applied to the States as well, only they also have laws that limit Free Speech, and the Supreme Court has upheld limitations from both of them. So the Constitution says one thing but in reality that's not the Law of the Land.

We good so far?

"Good"?... sure. You've added no clarity as to your position, but perhaps that wasn't your intent.

 

[kaz]

You say you're an honest person? Answer the questions? What bad things have happened to these people? Many of them are on TV. One on the Supreme Court. One runs Stanford. One is retired. Several are successful authors? What terrible things were done to them? Be honest now, that's who you are right?

That they are famous and haven't committed suicide doesn't contradict my point that liberals are close minded and rigidly intolerant. So I don't see the point of your "questions." I also challenged you to what would be an easy task if you weren't wrong, to give examples of things that liberals are open to views about and disagree on, you can't.

The examples you gave me are people who has supposedly been hurt bu the vicious Liberals, and yet they all seem to be perfectly fine? If they've been hurt why can't you show that to us? What bad things were done to them?

And what do Liberals not agree on? War, abortion, debt, religion, foreign policy, global warming, politics, art, science, spanking children, prostitution, drugs, education, and bad TV. Pick a couple and we'll play with them.

And name two Democrats who actually publicly disagree on those. Would that be you and your uncle?

 

[kaz]

His question is totally valid. How have those people you listed been destroyed?

What has been done to them is clear, I'm not interested in a debate with two closed minds any more than one.

She's stuck, because it's dogma and untrue. We're closed-minded because we are asking her to prove what she believes but can't. Interesting.

What's not interesting is chasing liberals down rat holes.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Actually every one of the people above named became successful, or rich, or famous by attacking liberal philosophies. They should at least thank us....

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Then it raises the possibility I've misinterpreted your position. Or you're simply inconsistent. It's hard to say because your posts tend to be quips rather than arguments. Care to clarify?

Well, let's see what we have here. We have an Amendment to a Constitution that says Congress shall make no law, and yet they do. We also have the issue that even if Congress hadn't, the States were allowed to, until that is the Supreme Court said that same Constitutional protection applied to the States as well, only they also have laws that limit Free Speech, and the Supreme Court has upheld limitations from both of them. So the Constitution says one thing but in reality that's not the Law of the Land.

We good so far?

"Good"?... sure. You've added no clarity as to your position, but perhaps that wasn't your intent.

That is correct. Now, if all of the above is true, if that's how we live now, does it really make a difference what my opinion is? Would me saying well, you can't pass another law because it goes against the Constitution when we already have many laws that do the very same thing?